When I was working in surgery at the hospital by ambulance brought the grandmother. She was over 70. The passport data specified age — 74. It was in the middle of the dashing 90's, when hospitals had nothing. Even bed linen, not to mention the drugs. Disease grandmother required the use of antibiotics. And as it was decided, I wrote a list of medicines and handed it to family so they acquired the drugs at the pharmacy and we started treatment.
Grandma with a critical eye looked at the list and told my son not to buy antibiotics. And he very much needed. Naturally I asked why. What grandma said that she's already three days and treated with antibiotic. I said, "What?". "Aspirin," replied grandma.
"But aspirin is not an antibiotic", I said. Grandma looked at me with wise eyes and said sacramental phrase, a tone of a mother addressing a foolish child: "Son. You still see young. Many do not know. I always germs aspirin treat. And as you can see, alive and well".
I was then young, began to argue that grandma is mistaken, that had no effect, because grandmother was 100% certain antimicrobial action of the antibiotic. In the end, I was not able to convince grandma. So I had to negotiate with relatives, and we antibiotics she was taking, but under the form of liquid aspirin. Grandma was safely out, though I think that her belief in antibiotic-aspirin after treatment was strong, which could play a malicious joke with it in the future.In later life I've noticed that there are quite a lot of people with limited knowledge, with a minimum of argumentation, but which are categorical in his opinion. Attempts to convince these people of anything, even if you are a professional in the discussion area, impossible.
I remember the discussions on the website with a girl living in Kazakhstan, and a couple of times visited Russia. She claimed that the Russians, who something dissatisfied with the situation in the country and the economy in particular, "oborzeli" and don't understand what Paradise they live in. But the main argument, which allowed her to perceive Russia as a Paradise, is the speed of the Internet at the airports. And its accessibility.
Any argument she would bring a counter-argument, like You have such accessibility of the Internet. What are You unhappy?
Recently, an acquaintance was invited to a birthday party. It was in a hunting Lodge, which was ordered by the huntsman Petrovich. When the conversation turned to cars, then Petrovich firmly and categorically stated that Russian people have to drive a Russian car. How he took it is unclear. Maybe because he went on the UAZ, but to move him from this position was impossible.
For the sake of interest I have been in several conversations with friends began to "play the fool", and achieved amazing results. They tried me in some way to convince angry, cried to my mind. But I in accordance with the role remained deaf to all arguments and stupidly brought their simple arguments. I was invincible.
In the end, I summarized for myself the constituent parts of such a position. Why did I do it?
Components invincible position in the dispute:1. The irrationality of the argument.
- First, to be able to recognize and not try to convince such people. Not to waste time and energy.
- Secondly, in some situations, you can enable "snap technology" that is sometimes useful.
That is, it does not matter where You took the argument. No matter what You can't answer why You think so, what is the factual or scientific basis for the arguments. It is important that this is Your argument, and it does not matter his rationale. Particularly effective arguments are built on:
- Someone else's opinion. Good TV, authorities, etc.
- Superstitions. Stars, signs, and energy.
- Conspiracy theories.
You can, after all, nothing to justify, explaining that phrases like "everyone knows".2. The limitations of the arguments.
The less arguments you have, the better. People with one argument will not win in principle. Don't need to be sprayed. Don't need to see the situation systematically. The power of limitations. Then You are invincible. In this case, the education system and the vision become enemies, treacherous contributing to the vision of the situation from different sides.3. Categorical arguments.
Definitely consider their arguments with truth.4. Do not take the arguments of the partner.
Better not even get. Just stand your ground. In extreme cases, to help you to clearly work out all the arguments of the partner.5. All think so, and you're not.
Not much if you take it upon yourself.6. The belittling of the partner: "how naive".7. Charges partner or argument: "So can reason only traitors".8. Welcome Panikovski:
remember how Panikovsky campaigned Balaganov to steal weights from the Loin, under the pretext that they are gold. And when Balaganov questioned: "And suddenly they not the gold?". What panikovskiy, laughing, has noticed: "And what else?"9. Easy go to the person accusing the opponent in any way you want.
Works particularly well doubts about the mental abilities, accusations of naivety, not of awareness, misunderstanding of the situation.10. Use value judgments, irony, jokes.
This opponent is nervous and irritated.11. Take a position "I is not fooled".
Look at the opponent as a psychiatrist on the patient, or Lenin on the bourgeoisie.
You can still add a few points, but that's enough. If You see that the partner adheres to such arguments, believe me, You anything to convince you can't.
It is 100% effective position, which ensures invincibility.
The truth and to deal with such a person does not want. But that's another story. published
Author: Boris Litvak
P. S. And remember, just changing your mind — together we change the world! ©
Join us in Facebook , Vkontakte, Odnoklassniki